Quintana-Ruiz v. Hyundai Motor Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “the fact that the witness was an employee of the defendant was not a sufficient basis for the jury to reject his [uncontradicted] testimony”
• citing, inter alia, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. Martin (“C&O”), 283 US. 209 (1931), and Sonnentheil v. Christian Moerlein Brewing Co., 172 U.S. 401 (1899)
• “[A] jury may not reject testimony that is uncontradicted and unimpeached (directly, circumstantially, or inferentially
• jury may properly reject testimony where witness has a “financial or personal interest in the outcome of the case”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).